Ario Arioldi
Member
Capture One at present does not support the uncompressed file but it will with the next release which is due very soon (words from CO support team)
The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
A7R2 - Firmware update available (14-bit uncompressed RAW)
- Thread starter lambert
- Start date
Barry Haines
Active member
In the past I used to convert to DNG because of the slight gain in smaller file sizes 
Having updated this morning to the very latest Firmware 2.0...I decided to carry out a very quick crude test on file sizes (Sorry, absolutely no works of art here - This was a test purely for file sizes for compressed and uncompressed RAW and DNG's etc (+ the relative attached jpegs)
DROPBOX>>>>> https://www.dropbox.com/sh/h07c7yurahw42ru/AABkVYdqWf_PeAdR1U7hQNE7a?dl=0
I used the latest Windows version 9.1.1 DNG converter
RAW FILE SIZES...(are about the file sizes I was expecting)
40.9mb compressed = DSC02273.ARW
81.5mb uncompressed (14 bit) = DSC02274.ARW
DNG FILE SIZES
36.0mb compressed
36.2mb (14 bit uncompressed)...Then compressed via the DNG converter
It needs a little further investigation but I am now wondering if 14bit files compressed via the DNG converter might now be the best solution (at least for my needs as that is as a good balance between IQ and taking up to much storage space).
Cheers Barry
Having updated this morning to the very latest Firmware 2.0...I decided to carry out a very quick crude test on file sizes (Sorry, absolutely no works of art here - This was a test purely for file sizes
for compressed and uncompressed RAW and DNG's etc (+ the relative attached jpegs)DROPBOX>>>>> https://www.dropbox.com/sh/h07c7yurahw42ru/AABkVYdqWf_PeAdR1U7hQNE7a?dl=0
I used the latest Windows version 9.1.1 DNG converter
RAW FILE SIZES...(are about the file sizes I was expecting)
40.9mb compressed = DSC02273.ARW
81.5mb uncompressed (14 bit) = DSC02274.ARW
DNG FILE SIZES
36.0mb compressed
36.2mb (14 bit uncompressed)...Then compressed via the DNG converter
It needs a little further investigation but I am now wondering if 14bit files compressed via the DNG converter might now be the best solution (at least for my needs as that is as a good balance between IQ and taking up to much storage space).
Cheers Barry
Knorp
Well-known member
ErikKaffehr
Well-known member
Hi,
I am pretty sure you are not loosing image quality with DNG compression, although I guess it may be lossy. Lots of the information in the raw files is noise and there is little reason to save noise.
Sony has two methods of raw compression and one of those can cause artefacts on high contrast edges, I don't think you would see it in DNG compression.
On the other hand, a few programs don't support DNG, or do not support it properly. I usually save a binary copy of the raw in DNGs but that makes the DNGs very fat.
I am not sure I will use Sony's uncompressed raws as I have not seem any artefacts yet, but careful examination of the new format may make me to change my mind.
Best regards
Erik
I am pretty sure you are not loosing image quality with DNG compression, although I guess it may be lossy. Lots of the information in the raw files is noise and there is little reason to save noise.
Sony has two methods of raw compression and one of those can cause artefacts on high contrast edges, I don't think you would see it in DNG compression.
On the other hand, a few programs don't support DNG, or do not support it properly. I usually save a binary copy of the raw in DNGs but that makes the DNGs very fat.
I am not sure I will use Sony's uncompressed raws as I have not seem any artefacts yet, but careful examination of the new format may make me to change my mind.
Best regards
Erik
In the past I used to convert to DNG because of the slight gain in smaller file sizes
Having updated this morning to the very latest Firmware 2.0...I decided to carry out a very quick crude test on file sizes (Sorry, absolutely no works of art here - This was a test purely for file sizes
DROPBOX>>>>> https://www.dropbox.com/sh/h07c7yurahw42ru/AABkVYdqWf_PeAdR1U7hQNE7a?dl=0
I used the latest Windows version 9.1.1 DNG converter
RAW FILE SIZES...(are about the file sizes I was expecting)
40.9mb compressed = DSC02273.ARW
81.5mb uncompressed (14 bit) = DSC02274.ARW
DNG FILE SIZES
36.0mb compressed
36.2mb (14 bit uncompressed)...Then compressed via the DNG converter
It needs a little further investigation but I am now wondering if 14bit files compressed via the DNG converter might now be the best solution (at least for my needs as that is as a good balance between IQ and taking up to much storage space).
Cheers Barry
Barry Haines
Active member
Thank you David for checking it out, most appreciated :thumbup: (I must admit I have not come upon any Adobe warnings yet...not to say that I won’t later on :facesmack: ).
I always thought that the DNG converter was making a compressed Lossless conversion of an uncompressed 14 bit Lossless RAW file https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Negative
Or in our case with the A7RII Firmware 2.0 upgrade, it would make a compressed version of a 14 bit RAW Lossy file which would still show up as Lossy after the DNG conversion (Just as you are saying).
Although I’m still unsure if you would have any further loss of quality over the original 14 bit Lossy RAW files if you get my drift, as the DNG conversion is supposedly Lossless on the original file.
You would just benefit from smaller files, although that all sounds to good to be true doesn’t it!...As said before I think it needs further investigation to see if it has any merit before giving up on it...Thanks again
...Cheers Barry________________________________________________
Stop bragging Bart ^^^ Everybody knows less is MORE...You should get yourself the A7SII as there is obviously something very wrong with your camera my friend
:ROTFL:_________________________________________________
Thank you Eric...Pretty much my take also.
I am pretty sure you are not loosing image quality with DNG compression, although I guess it may be lossy. Lots of the information in the raw files is noise and there is little reason to save noise.
I can't get C1. DXO op, Aperture, or my stand alone LR6 version to open this uncompressed ARW file...... I did the upload and it seems to have a 86mp file on the card but none of my PP softwares are recognizing it as of yet.
Figured I would try a shot to see what all the hoopla was with this...... to me going back to uncompressed RAW is as advanced as a 8 track player
Figured I would try a shot to see what all the hoopla was with this...... to me going back to uncompressed RAW is as advanced as a 8 track player
As expected: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/56648196
Six stop push? Go large or go home. Can't push six stops with compressed RAW, what to do, what to do...
k-hawinkler
Well-known member
How do you get the binary copy back in the original form? TIA.
Here is what I found with a quick test:
A) File in uncompressed raw from camera is listed at 86.5MB in finder.
B) Export file from Lightroom CC 2015 as dng with no JPG is 48.8 MB in finder.
C) Export file from Lightroom CC 2015 with lossy compression ticked, as dng with no JPG is 22 MB in finder.
Based on this, without any other considerations, Lightroom compresses raw files when exporting. Since this is done without any options one can presume that it is lossless compression.
I'd say it makes sense to consider importing into Lightroom as dng or doing a batch conversion if large file size is a concern.
A) File in uncompressed raw from camera is listed at 86.5MB in finder.
B) Export file from Lightroom CC 2015 as dng with no JPG is 48.8 MB in finder.
C) Export file from Lightroom CC 2015 with lossy compression ticked, as dng with no JPG is 22 MB in finder.
Based on this, without any other considerations, Lightroom compresses raw files when exporting. Since this is done without any options one can presume that it is lossless compression.
I'd say it makes sense to consider importing into Lightroom as dng or doing a batch conversion if large file size is a concern.
k-hawinkler
Well-known member
After you have done this, could you still edit the file in C1?
I would have to backup the claim that it makes a difference, even just with shadows maxed to 100 in LR. I shot a window using uncompressed raw and pushed the darker inside areas to Shadows +100 in LR (plus some other minor adjustments) then copy/pasted the settings over to the same scene shot with compressed raw. The compressed shot had much more of a weird pink color cast in the pushed areas. Uncompressed much cleaner and even color overall. Have to say I'm surprised. I didn't expect to see any difference.
Left: compressed.
Last edited:
Again, at 800ISO. Compressed on the right this time. This is with Exposure at +1.75 and shadows +100 though, which is a setting I would try to avoid. Quite underexposed and normally I wouldn't push shots this far, but it's a long way from 6 stops underexposed and I'm still seeing a difference in low frequency noise and color casts in the shadows.
Slingers
Active member
I believe that last one on the right is a good example of the known compression artefacts that used to be really visible on the edges and appear purple like CA from a bright highlight next to a dark shadow. Now it seems with these magnified views at a pixel level it looks like the artefacts cover more than the edges.
ErikKaffehr
Well-known member
Hi,
Adobe DNG Converter has a button name "Extract...":
I have tested embedding and extracting an image and the original image and the extracted one had the same MD5 checksum, meaning that they were bitwise copies.
Best regards
Erik
Adobe DNG Converter has a button name "Extract...":
I have tested embedding and extracting an image and the original image and the extracted one had the same MD5 checksum, meaning that they were bitwise copies.
Best regards
Erik
Annna T
Active member
Photographylife has compared the sizes of uncompressed raw files against dng files :
https://photographylife.com/sony-a7r-ii-uncompressed-raw-with-adobe-dng-converter
What is interesting is that they compared both pictures with few details and pictures with lots of details.
It's the first time that I find some interest in this conversion.
https://photographylife.com/sony-a7r-ii-uncompressed-raw-with-adobe-dng-converter
What is interesting is that they compared both pictures with few details and pictures with lots of details.
It's the first time that I find some interest in this conversion.
I just updated my crippled version of Capture 1 (Sony version) to 8.3.3.
All three of the dng files opened. The native sony file is not readable.
The dng files also opened in 8.3.2
I'd prefer to have the comparison without JPG included. I see no reason to embed a JPG into a raw file when all the software options we use for processing has the capability to create a JPG for its own use.
The file I used had about 25% sky and the rest was fine detail trees and bushes. I selected it because it seems about average for detail.